CosbehFox

To let everyone know, at the Trust we have asked the question about getting more tickets, no response to date

Tbf though there’s been some very basic grounds hosting WSL football. Everton’s Walton Hall Park for example was not too dissimilar to Seagrave. The perfect ground would be Leicester Road Hinckley but that’s a complicated web and it needs a far bit of money on it now. Loughborough Uni’s own female team use their university decent ground (and Forest U21s). That the cup game was played at Notts County sadly speaks volumes.

We’ve failed to beat three teams we’d already beaten this season. When he joined we were:- 3 points off Blackburn (now four) 2 points off West Brom (now four) 4 points head of Oxford (now level). It’s only Pompey we’ve made points on. In amongst that we’ve had some fortune that really haven’t taken advantage of. There’s huge amount of pressure on the two Easter games and the failure to collect all six. I’d say it’s not been a great time for Rowett. Truly hope it isn’t though.

If your theory is right, explain King's caretaker spell then. Explain why the team's fitness is now gassed because that was under King's management in the summer. The point I made regards Rowett's 7 points to Cifuenties 11 - the games which mirror were all played around November/December. We had a spell of form in December. That's nothing to do with pre-season. I am no fan of Cifuenties. I am just making the point that Rowett isn't really any better and the idea that King is the reason we started the season well is so far off the mark.

Devil's advocate here though - we've gone to a goal a game compared 1.375 goals per game. The defensive solidarity is a trade off for attacking ability of this team. Largely cos of the midfield is a ****ing mess.

No but the fitness was done by King, that was my point. He was in charge of pre-season for the first two to three weeks. He's the key reason the players are unfit now. Ciufentes wasn't there to shape the hard running side of pre-season. Saying the early good form was because of King is nonsense because his caretaker spell was a disaster and the fitness he was in charge of during pre-season is now falling apart. If you want a fact, Ciufentes record is better PPG than Rowett. From Rowett's games we have 7 points, from the same opposition earlier in the season we have 11 points.

It will slightly change due to the expansion of the division. Still going to be absolutely horrific hammerings though.

Training not perfect. It’s also in my opinion a very difficult route. Hills galore. The second lap starts with an absolute beast and then the next five miles are incredibly difficult Still just squeezed inside 3hrs 30

Nope. Playoff v 3rd in WSL2 Which is like to be Crystal Palace (lost to them already this season), Newcastle United (ex England internationals amongst their players) or Bristol City (ex WSL). The playoff will be away and LCFC haven’t won away in two years

Ashby 20 today. First lap superb; felt strong, heart rate not too high and well on my target time Second lap; hell

Think we can dis spell that myth given King’s caretaker spell we looked as bad as we’ve been all season and the pre season he led hardly has us looking athletic at the moment

It’s something we’ve discussed at the Trust board meeting on Monday.

That’s my point when it comes to the inefficiencies of these meetings. They don’t zone in on the why’s and how’s

No because the debate wasn’t started by fans. The debate was started because the how and why people didn’t go the West Brom game. There were grumbles there I didn’t agree with - people citing why they didn’t go etc etc However the club mentioned how other clubs do actually penalise season ticket holders. That’s how it came into conversation. Apparently the club do track if there’s a pattern which points to individual cases such as as ill health, they give the affected ST holder a call. That’s the lack of context and nuance seeing it in a minute process. For example the comments around money off shirts and food etc, that’s only prompted under the proviso of added benefits to a season ticket or membership. The minutes don’t pre qualify why those comments came about. As silly as the suggestions I thought they were in my own personal view

The difficulty you have is that within the format; at maximum, the trust are only in two of the three breakout groups. Union FS is similar; two at a max. The format is normally - Briefing and run through topics - Three breakout groups - Summary at the end The Trust only ever have a maximum of two; FAB member plus one representative. I’ve long thought the format is pants. Cos it just becomes a moan in. There’s little conclusion, action and then result. As you’ll see from the Trust meeting minutes due out soon from Monday night, we’ve started to discuss the FEF and how now it’s been ‘test driven’ for nearly two years. So it’s been a fair crack to see where it fails IMO.

Btw there’s no mention that numerous people within the meeting defended Union FS. And that they getting stick for other peoples views and chants etc

That’s the clubs decision to minute that It certainly wasn’t how I viewed it being there at the time The FCC meetings are generally very critical and there’s a lot more nuance and a lot more discussed than what you see on these minutes. I’d say the issue with it is that you have too many voices which say a lot of information and what this fails to do is actually get at the root of anything. The comment about any club backed campaign being inauthentic was my own and the person whose being criticised for the ST comments went on a 5 minute passionate about how the club has failed to give the fanbase any hope or encouragement for this season or future seasons

The chant which was described as being over the line was the one about stringing up Rudkin which absolutely was over the line. Plenty said at the time that football atmospheres thrive on an edgy atmosphere

It was a minor discussion point and it was universally rejected across the room

Ultimately the club shaping the minutes how they see fit. The point regards ST ticket increases was made by someone who feared that the club would at one point introduce a huge increase to catch up with other clubs rather than do smaller incremental increases which are manageable. It's been unfairly worded. I'd also say he's very passionate and he gets it more than 80% of people in that room. The ID check is an issue where the majority were for them. Me and a few others pointed out it's a symptom of the priority system. The delay behind the priority system is off really. They held a 90 minute session which was pro-change of it and then did a survey which basically had top priority point holders protecting their interest. The reality is if a proposed system showed that they would still be protected then that allays fears.

Looks like I am off to Belfast for work - defo going to push it alongside a weekend and make the most of it.

This is out at end of April in the UK too https://www.autlookfilms.com/films/ultras

Plenty pointing out the issue with chopping and changing managers. It doesn't allow a manager to properly assess the squad and by the time, he's sussed them out, the manager is sacked.

I'd be interested to see 2025 crowds - there are some figures flying about that show our attendances between 2023 into 2024 halved.

The comparable case is Luton Town who were docked points for it. In the process with a combination of other financial issues putting them out of the Football League.